pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17582 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-19 · 📡 eess.SP

Active MIMO Sensing With Exploration-Exploitation Tradeoff

Nadim Ghaddar , Kareem M. Attiah , Wei Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 05:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords active MIMO sensingbeamformingBayesian Cramér-Rao boundexploration-exploitation tradeoffalternating optimizationMIMO radaradaptive designLagrangian dual
0
0 comments X

The pith

Minimizing the Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound adapts transmit and receive beamformers stage by stage in MIMO radar.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops an active sensing method for MIMO radar systems in which beamformers are redesigned after each stage of measurements by minimizing the Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound on the unknown sensing parameters. Two problem variants address the exploration-exploitation tradeoff: one that requires multiple orthogonal directions to be probed and one that does not. Both variants are solved by an alternating optimization algorithm that updates the transmit beamformers and the receive beamformers in turn. The algorithm converges to a stationary point, and global optimality of each subproblem is guaranteed when the eigenvalues of a derived direction matrix satisfy a multiplicity condition. Simulations show performance gains over existing adaptive beamforming techniques.

Core claim

The central claim is that minimizing the Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound at each stage via Lagrangian dual optimization yields adaptive transmit and receive beamformers for MIMO radar sensing, with the exploration-centric variant forcing multiple orthogonal probes and the exploitation-centric variant allowing fewer, both solved by alternating optimization that converges to a stationary point with global optimality when eigenvalue multiplicity conditions hold on the direction matrix.

What carries the argument

Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound minimization problem formulated with exploration-centric and exploitation-centric variants, solved by alternating optimization between transmit and receive beamformers and analyzed in the Lagrangian dual domain for optimality conditions.

If this is right

  • The alternating optimization converges to a stationary point when each subproblem is solved to global optimality.
  • Global optimality of the subproblems holds when the direction matrix has eigenvalues of sufficient multiplicity.
  • The semidefinite relaxation of the problems is tight under the same eigenvalue multiplicity conditions.
  • The resulting beamformers outperform state-of-the-art adaptive beamforming strategies in numerical simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The BCRB proxy for performance could be replaced by other bounds to test robustness in different estimation settings.
  • The eigenvalue multiplicity condition offers a practical test to decide when the simpler semidefinite relaxation can be used directly.
  • The two-variant structure suggests similar exploration-exploitation splits might apply to adaptive designs in other multi-antenna sensing tasks such as communications or sonar.

Load-bearing premise

That repeatedly minimizing the Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound at each sensing stage produces better final estimation accuracy than non-adaptive or alternative designs.

What would settle it

A controlled simulation in which the BCRB-minimizing beamformers produce higher parameter estimation error than a fixed beamformer or a different adaptive rule would falsify the claimed performance benefit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17582 by Kareem M. Attiah, Nadim Ghaddar, Wei Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Average WMSE versus received SNR for a MIMO sensing sy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Average WMSE versus number of sensing stages for a MIM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average WMSE versus received SNR for a MIMO sensing sy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Marginal posterior distributions of the AoAs, an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper develops an active sensing framework for designing the transmit and receive beamformers of a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radar system. In the proposed technique, the beamformers are adaptively designed in each sensing stage based on the measurements made in the previous sensing stages. The beamformers are determined by minimizing the Bayesian Cram{\'e}r-Rao bound (BCRB) for the estimation of the unknown sensing parameters at each stage via Lagrangian dual optimization. To address the exploration-exploitation tradeoff that is inherent to such an adaptive design, this paper proposes two variants of the BCRB optimization problem: an exploration-centric variant, that ensures that multiple orthogonal beamforming directions are probed in each sensing stage, and an exploitation-centric variant, that does not restrict the number of optimal beamformers. Each variant of the optimization problem is solved via an alternating optimization algorithm that alternates between solving for the transmit beamformers and solving for the receive beamformers. The algorithm is shown to converge to a stationary point provided that each optimization problem is solved to global optimality. Moreover, this paper studies each of the two BCRB optimization sub-problems in the Lagrangian dual domain and shows that despite the non-convexity, global optimality is guaranteed provided that certain sufficient conditions hold. The conditions pertain to the multiplicity of the eigenvalues of a specific direction matrix that can be analytically written in terms of the optimal dual variables. These conditions further imply the tightness of the semidefinite relaxation of the optimization problems. Simulation results demonstrate the benefits of the proposed BCRB-based design compared to state-of-the-art adaptive beamforming strategies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops an active MIMO radar sensing framework for adaptive design of transmit and receive beamformers across multiple stages. Beamformers are chosen at each stage by minimizing the Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound (BCRB) on unknown sensing parameters via Lagrangian dual optimization. Two variants address the exploration-exploitation tradeoff: an exploration-centric version that enforces multiple orthogonal directions and an exploitation-centric version without this restriction. Both are solved by alternating optimization (AO) between transmit and receive beamformers. The work claims AO convergence to a stationary point when subproblems are solved globally, provides sufficient conditions on eigenvalue multiplicity of a dual-derived direction matrix for global optimality (and SDR tightness) despite non-convexity, and reports simulation gains over state-of-the-art adaptive beamforming.

Significance. If the optimality and convergence claims hold under the stated conditions, the paper supplies a principled, BCRB-driven method for adaptive MIMO sensing that explicitly trades off exploration and exploitation, backed by dual-domain analysis and SDR tightness results. This could advance practical adaptive radar design where prior measurements inform subsequent beamforming.

major comments (2)
  1. [Convergence and optimality analysis (cross-referenced with Numerical Results)] Convergence theorem and Lagrangian dual analysis: the paper correctly states that global optimality of each BCRB subproblem (and thus AO convergence to a stationary point) holds only when the eigenvalues of the direction matrix (constructed from the optimal dual variables) satisfy a specific multiplicity condition that also ensures SDR tightness. However, the numerical results section provides no verification that this multiplicity condition is met for the random realizations, SNR regimes, or parameter values used in the Monte Carlo trials. Without this check, the reported simulation benefits cannot be confidently attributed to the globally optimal solutions whose existence is conditioned on the multiplicity requirement.
  2. [Numerical Results] Simulation evaluation of performance gains: while the abstract and results claim benefits versus state-of-the-art adaptive beamforming, the link between the achieved BCRB values and actual estimation error (e.g., via Monte Carlo MSE) is not quantified in a way that isolates the effect of the exploration/exploitation variants from other design choices such as the number of stages or power constraints.
minor comments (1)
  1. [System Model and Problem Formulation] Notation for the direction matrix and dual variables could be introduced with a brief reminder of their dependence on previous-stage measurements to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the adaptive setup.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and outline the revisions we will make to address the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Convergence theorem and Lagrangian dual analysis: the paper correctly states that global optimality of each BCRB subproblem (and thus AO convergence to a stationary point) holds only when the eigenvalues of the direction matrix (constructed from the optimal dual variables) satisfy a specific multiplicity condition that also ensures SDR tightness. However, the numerical results section provides no verification that this multiplicity condition is met for the random realizations, SNR regimes, or parameter values used in the Monte Carlo trials. Without this check, the reported simulation benefits cannot be confidently attributed to the globally optimal solutions whose existence is conditioned on the multiplicity requirement.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's observation that the numerical results do not explicitly verify the eigenvalue multiplicity condition in the Monte Carlo trials. The theoretical analysis provides sufficient conditions for global optimality and SDR tightness, and our simulations were conducted under parameter regimes where these conditions are expected to hold based on the problem setup. To strengthen the manuscript, we will add a new subsection or paragraph in the Numerical Results section that reports the empirical verification of the multiplicity condition across the trials. Specifically, we will compute and present the percentage of realizations satisfying the condition for different SNR values and parameter settings. This will allow readers to assess the applicability of the optimality guarantees in the simulated scenarios. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Simulation evaluation of performance gains: while the abstract and results claim benefits versus state-of-the-art adaptive beamforming, the link between the achieved BCRB values and actual estimation error (e.g., via Monte Carlo MSE) is not quantified in a way that isolates the effect of the exploration/exploitation variants from other design choices such as the number of stages or power constraints.

    Authors: We agree that establishing a direct link between the BCRB minimization and the actual estimation performance via Monte Carlo simulations would enhance the evaluation. The current results focus on the BCRB metric as it directly reflects the optimization objective and provides a theoretical bound on the estimation error. In the revised version, we will include additional Monte Carlo simulations that compute the mean squared error (MSE) of the estimated parameters for both the exploration-centric and exploitation-centric variants, as well as the state-of-the-art methods. These simulations will be performed with fixed numbers of stages and under the same power constraints to isolate the impact of the beamformer design variants. We will also add a discussion on how the BCRB correlates with the observed MSE, thereby quantifying the practical benefits more comprehensively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain; analysis is mathematically self-contained.

full rationale

The paper derives convergence of alternating optimization to a stationary point from the assumption that each BCRB subproblem is solved to global optimality. It then analyzes the subproblems in the Lagrangian dual domain and derives sufficient conditions on eigenvalue multiplicity of a direction matrix (expressed analytically from optimal dual variables) that guarantee global optimality and SDR tightness. This is a standard conditional proof technique for non-convex QCQPs and does not reduce any claim to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. BCRB is an externally defined standard metric; no ansatz is smuggled via citation, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior author work. The derivation stands independently of the numerical results, which are presented separately as empirical validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach relies on standard assumptions in Bayesian estimation and convex optimization relaxations for beamforming problems. No new entities are invented; the BCRB is a known metric.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The signal model allows for Bayesian estimation of unknown parameters with a prior distribution.
    Implicit in the use of Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5598 in / 1305 out tokens · 43918 ms · 2026-05-10T05:28:30.727051+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Active uplink sensing beamformer d esign via Bayesian Cram´ er-Rao Bound dual optimization,

    N. Ghaddar and W. Y u, “Active uplink sensing beamformer d esign via Bayesian Cram´ er-Rao Bound dual optimization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC) , 2025, pp. 5736–5741

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P . Stoica, MIMO Radar Signal Processing . John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    V an Trees, Detection, Estimation and Modulation Theory, Part 1

    H. V an Trees, Detection, Estimation and Modulation Theory, Part 1 . New Y ork: Wiley, 1968

    work page 1968

  4. [4]

    Target detection and loc alization using MIMO radars and sonars,

    I. Bekkerman and J. Tabrikian, “Target detection and loc alization using MIMO radars and sonars,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3873–3883, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Ra nge com- pression and waveform optimization for MIMO radar: A Cram´ e r–Rao bound based study,

    J. Li, L. Xu, P . Stoica, K. W. Forsythe, and D. W. Bliss, “Ra nge com- pression and waveform optimization for MIMO radar: A Cram´ e r–Rao bound based study,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 218–232, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Optimal adapt ive waveform design for cognitive MIMO radar,

    W. Huleihel, J. Tabrikian, and R. Shavit, “Optimal adapt ive waveform design for cognitive MIMO radar,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 20, pp. 5075–5089, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Cra m´ er-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamfor ming,

    F. Liu, Y .-F. Liu, A. Li, C. Masouros, and Y . C. Eldar, “Cra m´ er-Rao bound optimization for joint radar-communication beamfor ming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 70, pp. 240–253, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A jo int radar-communication precoding design based on Cram´ er-Ra o bound optimization,

    F. Liu, Y .-F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. Li, and Y . C. Eldar, “A jo int radar-communication precoding design based on Cram´ er-Ra o bound optimization,” in IEEE Radar Conf. , 2022, pp. 1–6

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Information and se nsing beamforming optimization for multi-user multi-target MIM O ISAC systems,

    M. Zhu, L. Li, S. Xia, and T.-H. Chang, “Information and se nsing beamforming optimization for multi-user multi-target MIM O ISAC systems,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    MIMO integrated sensing and communi cation exploiting prior information,

    C. Xu and S. Zhang, “MIMO integrated sensing and communi cation exploiting prior information,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2306–2321, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Uplink-downlink duality for bea mforming in integrated sensing and communications,

    K. M. Attiah and W. Y u, “Uplink-downlink duality for bea mforming in integrated sensing and communications,” 2025, accepted in IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory . [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.1366 1

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Integrated sensing and communicati on exploiting prior information: How many sensing beams are needed?

    C. Xu and S. Zhang, “Integrated sensing and communicati on exploiting prior information: How many sensing beams are needed?” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT) , 2024, pp. 2802–2807

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    How many simultaneous beamformers are needed for integrated sensing and communications?

    K. M. Attiah and W. Y u, “How many simultaneous beamforme rs are needed for integrated sensing and communications?” 2025. [ Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14982

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Hybrid beamforming optimization for MIMO ISAC based on prior distribution information,

    Y . Wang and S. Zhang, “Hybrid beamforming optimization for MIMO ISAC based on prior distribution information,” 2026. [ Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07869

    work page arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Adaptive polarize d waveform design for target tracking based on sequential bayesian inf erence,

    M. Hurtado, T. Zhao, and A. Nehorai, “Adaptive polarize d waveform design for target tracking based on sequential bayesian inf erence,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1120–1133, 2008

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    MIMO radar waveform design based on mutual information and minimum mean-square error estimati on,

    Y . Y ang and R. S. Blum, “MIMO radar waveform design based on mutual information and minimum mean-square error estimati on,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 330–343, 2007

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Design principles of MIMO radar d etectors,

    A. De Maio and M. Lops, “Design principles of MIMO radar d etectors,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 886–898, 2007

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    On probing signal design fo r MIMO radar,

    P . Stoica, J. Li, and Y . Xie, “On probing signal design fo r MIMO radar,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 4151–4161, 2007

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    Waveform correlation and opt imization issues for MIMO radar,

    K. Forsythe and D. Bliss, “Waveform correlation and opt imization issues for MIMO radar,” in Proc. 39th Asilomar Conf. Sig. Syst. Comput. , 2005, pp. 1306–1310

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Joint radar and communication design: Applications, state-of-t he-art, and the road ahead,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. P . Petropulu, H. Griffiths, and L. Hanzo, “Joint radar and communication design: Applications, state-of-t he-art, and the road ahead,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3834–3862, 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications an d MIMO radar,

    X. Liu, T. Huang, N. Shlezinger, Y . Liu, J. Zhou, and Y . C. Eldar, “Joint transmit beamforming for multiuser MIMO communications an d MIMO radar,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 3929–3944, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-func tional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,

    F. Liu, Y . Cui, C. Masouros, J. Xu, T. X. Han, Y . C. Eldar, a nd S. Buzzi, “Integrated sensing and communications: Toward dual-func tional wire- less networks for 6G and beyond,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1767, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Efficient transcei ver design for MIMO dual-function radar-communication systems,

    C. Wen, Y . Huang, and T. N. Davidson, “Efficient transcei ver design for MIMO dual-function radar-communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 71, pp. 1786–1801, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Full-duplex communication for ISAC: Joint beamforming an d power optimization,

    Z. He, W. Xu, H. Shen, D. W. K. Ng, Y . C. Eldar, and X. Y ou, “Full-duplex communication for ISAC: Joint beamforming an d power optimization,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 2920– 2936, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Optimal transmit beamformi ng for integrated sensing and communication,

    H. Hua, J. Xu, and T. X. Han, “Optimal transmit beamformi ng for integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol. , vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 10 588–10 603, 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Cognitive radar: a way of the future,

    S. Haykin, “Cognitive radar: a way of the future,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 30–40, 2006

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Adaptiv e waveform design and sequential hypothesis testing for target recogn ition with active sensors,

    N. A. Goodman, P . R. V enkata, and M. A. Neifeld, “Adaptiv e waveform design and sequential hypothesis testing for target recogn ition with active sensors,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 105–113, 2007

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    Optimal waveform design for cognitive radar,

    S. Haykin, Y . Xue, and T. N. Davidson, “Optimal waveform design for cognitive radar,” in Proc. 42th Asilomar Conf. Sig. Syst. Comput. , 2008, pp. 3–7

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Optimal waveform selection fo r tracking systems,

    D. Kershaw and R. Evans, “Optimal waveform selection fo r tracking systems,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1536–1550, 1994

    work page 1994

  31. [31]

    Waveform selective probabilistic data associati on,

    ——, “Waveform selective probabilistic data associati on,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1180–1188, 1997

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    OFDM MIMO radar with mutual-info rmation waveform design for low-grazing angle tracking,

    S. Sen and A. Nehorai, “OFDM MIMO radar with mutual-info rmation waveform design for low-grazing angle tracking,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3152–3162, 2010

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    Chan nel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellul ar systems,

    A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Chan nel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellul ar systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831–846, 2014

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Active learni ng and CSI acquisition for mmWave initial alignment,

    S.-E. Chiu, N. Ronquillo, and T. Javidi, “Active learni ng and CSI acquisition for mmWave initial alignment,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 2474–2489, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Deep active learning app roach to adaptive beamforming for mmWave initial alignment,

    F. Sohrabi, Z. Chen, and W. Y u, “Deep active learning app roach to adaptive beamforming for mmWave initial alignment,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2347–2360, 2021

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Active sensing f or communi- cations by learning,

    F. Sohrabi, T. Jiang, W. Cui, and W. Y u, “Active sensing f or communi- cations by learning,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1780–1794, 2022

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Active sensing for reciprocal MIMO c hannels,

    T. Jiang and W. Y u, “Active sensing for reciprocal MIMO c hannels,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 72, pp. 2905–2920, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Active sensing for multiuse r beam tracking with reconfigurable intelligent surface,

    H. Han, T. Jiang, and W. Y u, “Active sensing for multiuse r beam tracking with reconfigurable intelligent surface,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 540–554, 2025

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Rank-constrained separabl e semidefinite programming with applications to optimal beamforming,

    Y . Huang and D. P . Palomar, “Rank-constrained separabl e semidefinite programming with applications to optimal beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 664–678, 2010

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    On the rank of extreme matrices in semidefini te programs and the multiplicity of optimal eigenvalues,

    G. Pataki, “On the rank of extreme matrices in semidefini te programs and the multiplicity of optimal eigenvalues,” Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 339–358, 1998

    work page 1998

  41. [41]

    On transmit beamforming for MIMO rada r,

    B. Friedlander, “On transmit beamforming for MIMO rada r,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 3376–3388, 2012

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Target detection and lo calization using MIMO radars and sonars,

    I. Bekkerman and J. Tabrikian, “Target detection and lo calization using MIMO radars and sonars,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3873–3883, 2006

    work page 2006

  43. [43]

    An antenna diver sity MMIC vector modulator for HIPERLAN with low power consumption an d 20 calibration capability,

    F. Ellinger, U. Lott, and W. Bachtold, “An antenna diver sity MMIC vector modulator for HIPERLAN with low power consumption an d 20 calibration capability,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. , vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 964–969, 2001

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    Alternating minimiz ation for hybrid precoding in multiuser OFDM mmWave systems,

    X. Y u, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Alternating minimiz ation for hybrid precoding in multiuser OFDM mmWave systems,” in Proc. 50th Asilomar Conf. Sig. Syst. Comput. , 2016, pp. 281–285

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    Some lower bounds on signal paramet er estima- tion,

    J. Ziv and M. Zakai, “Some lower bounds on signal paramet er estima- tion,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 386–391, 1969

    work page 1969

  46. [46]

    A lower bound on the mean-squ are error in random parameter estimation (corresp.),

    A. Weiss and E. Weinstein, “A lower bound on the mean-squ are error in random parameter estimation (corresp.),” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 680–682, 1985

    work page 1985

  47. [47]

    A Barankin-type lower bound on the estimation error of a hybrid parameter vector,

    I. Reuven and H. Messer, “A Barankin-type lower bound on the estimation error of a hybrid parameter vector,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1084–1093, 1997

    work page 1997

  48. [48]

    A modified Cram´ er-Rao boun d and its applications (corresp.),

    R. W. Miller and C. B. Chang, “A modified Cram´ er-Rao boun d and its applications (corresp.),” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 398–400, 1978

    work page 1978

  49. [49]

    On the convergence of the b lock nonlinear Gauss-Seidel method under convex constraints,

    L. Grippo and M. Sciandrone, “On the convergence of the b lock nonlinear Gauss-Seidel method under convex constraints,” Oper . Res. Lett., vol. 26, no. 3, p. 127–136, 2000

    work page 2000

  50. [50]

    On a theorem of Weyl concerning eigenvalues of l inear transformations,

    K. Fan, “On a theorem of Weyl concerning eigenvalues of l inear transformations,” Proc. National Academy of Sciences , vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 652–655, 1949

    work page 1949

  51. [51]

    D. P . Bertsekas, Convex Optimization Theory . Belmont, MA: Athena Scientific, 2009

    work page 2009